Search

Background: A skin tear is a traumatic wound that occurs in up to one in five hospitalized patients. Nursing care includes application of a dressing to create a moist wound healing environment. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of two standard dressings (adhesive silicone foam vs. meshed silicone interface) to heal hospital‐acquired skin tear. Methods: An intention‐to‐treat pilot study was designed using a randomized, non‐inferiority trial in an Australian tertiary hospital setting. Consenting participants (n = 52) had acquired a skin tear within the previous 24 h and had agreed to a 3‐week follow‐up. Data were collected between 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome measure was wound healing at 21 days. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Per protocol, 86% of skin tears were fully healed at 3 weeks in the adhesive silicone foam group, compared to 59% in the meshed silicone interface group. Greater healing was observed across all skin tear categories in the adhesive silicone foam dressing group. In the intention‐to‐treat sample, healing was 69% and 42%, respectively. Conclusions: Results suggest the adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to the meshed silicone interface dressing. Accounting for potential loss to follow‐up, a sample of at least 103 participants per arm would be required to power a definitive study. Summary statement: What is already known about this topic? A skin tear is a traumatic wound that is commonly acquired during hospitalization that affects older adults in particular. In hospital settings, it may occur in up to one in five patients.A variety of skin tear dressings have been used in previous studies, with healing rates ranging from 34% to 97% at 21 days; however, evidence for the most effective dressing type is inconclusive.If treated inappropriately, or left untreated, minor skin tears can become chronic or complicated wounds, yet prevalence and treatment of hospital‐acquired injuries are under‐reported. What this paper adds? Based on our per‐protocol results, an adhesive silicone foam dressing may be superior, as it produced clinically significant healing of 86% of skin tears at 3 weeks compared to 59% with the meshed silicone interface dressing.Based on the methods and results from this pilot study, a future definitive trial would be feasible but would need to account for a relatively large loss to follow‐up rate. The implications of this paper: Using our intention‐to‐treat results, a future study would need a sample size of 103 per arm to be sufficiently powered, which may be impractical to achieve within a single hospital setting; thus, a multi‐site study would be advisable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim In this paper, we describe a trial protocol used to assess feasibility related to: study administration (recruitment, randomization, retention, compliance, eligibility criteria, suitability of protocol instructions and data collection questionnaires); resource and data management (suitability of site, time and budget allocation, management of personnel and data); intervention fidelity (treatment dose, violations); and effect size. Background Pressure injury can lead to increases in hospital length of stay and cost. The sacrum is identified as one of the most common anatomical pressure injury sites for hospitalized patients. Silicone foam border dressings have been proposed as one strategy to reduce pressure injury incidence; however, rigorous testing of benefit in a general medical-surgical population is required. Design Randomized controlled trial. Methods Eighty patients will be recruited after assessment of high risk of pressure injury in a large tertiary hospital in south-east Queensland, Australia. Eligible, consenting participants will be randomly allocated to either a control group (routine care) or an intervention group (routine care and a sacral prophylactic dressing). The primary outcomes comprise feasibility criteria as identified above. The secondary measure is the presence and severity of sacral pressure injury via blind assessment of digital photographs. Research ethics approval was received in October 2013. Discussion Prophylactic dressings applied to the sacrum may be an effective method for reducing pressure injury in high-risk general medical-surgical patients. However, more rigorous studies to confirm benefit are required. This pilot study will determine the feasibility and effect size to inform a larger randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The validity of instruments is crucial in ensuring that data collected are sound and that these data represent what the instrument claims to measure. When an instrument is revised or used in a different population, it is useful to re‐examine its construct validity. Aim: To test the psychometrics properties of an instrument—the revised Families’ Importance In Nursing Care—Nurses’ Attitudes, designed to measure nurse’ attitudes towards involving family in nursing care in an adult acute care setting. Design and methodology: A cross‐sectional survey design was used in April–May 2016 with a sample of Enrolled and Registered Nurses (N = 212) to test the factor structure of the revised Families’ Importance In Nursing‐Nurses’ Attitudes instrument. The instrument had 26 items with a five‐point Likert response scale. Principle components analysis and exploratory factor analysis were performed with oblique rotations to assess the internal structure of the instrument. Setting: A regional referral hospital in Queensland, Australia. Results: Using Principal Components Analysis and Principal Axis Factoring, we obtained the same factor structure to that originally identified for the instrument. Our results suggested the removal of six items to refine the instrument and achieve simple structure. Conclusion: The removal of several items, relabeling of factors and residual cross‐loading issues suggest that further revisions to the instrument are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]